If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Gadhafi is Dead!!

So that's it. I could not imagine this would happen months ago. Back then I still expected that the rebels would be crushed in no time. Then the former Libyan government was overthrown, and now this. I dont know why I feel a bit sad about him. He was too cruel to his countrymen. He committed anti-human crime by order airforce bombers to bomb his own people in protest, not in open warfare. I cannot name any other one in human history who would do this.

Yet I still recall days when he stood up and challenged the US power under Reagan administration. I dont say that either side was evil or just. Gadhafi was just doing what he saw fit to protect his country, that's all. Anyway, tide has turned and who knows what happen next.

I find it a bit sickening the extent to which people are celebrating his death.

I'm sure he deserved it more than most but I don't think that excuses such behaviour.

On the contrary, I believe it sets a most excellent precedent. If the BBC says that murder is a justified way of eliminating unpopular politicians and leaders when we don't like them, then who are we to argue?

On the contrary, I believe it sets a most excellent precedent. If the BBC says that murder is a justified way of eliminating unpopular politicians and leaders when we don't like them, then who are we to argue?

The BBC said that? All I got was a bunch of reporters repeatedly repeating the repetitious repetitions of repeated stuff, and some windbag who didn't seem to have a clue (Here's a tip for you, Mr Editor man, the gun was not a revolver).

Yes, the BBC are saying that, very loudly and very clearly, for anybody who cares to actually listen. They said it when Saddam was executed, they said it when Bin Laden was assassinated, and they'll say it next time that somebody who opposes the UK's foreign policy dies in a violent manner.

Not that I mind, by the way. I personally believe that violence is a perfectly justified way of solving all of your problems. Can't get laid? Got no money? That guy look funny? There's nothing in life that can't be fixed with a nice bit of force. I learned this from watching how our favourite Authority figures deal with all of their problems...

My big problem with the violence in this situation is not that it was around, but who instigated it.

I find the fact that the EU and NATO got involved to be rather irritating, and I said from the start that I believe the Libyan people should be allowed to get this victory on their own. It is their revolution, it is their fight. It is not right for us to drop bombs and stuff on Gaddafi and his forces, because it's not our fight, plus they need that victory for themselves. They needed to be the ones who captured or killed Gaddafi, not us. If it's true that the NATO strike contributed directly to the capture and death of Gaddafi, then I think that's really sad.

We should have supported them and their new leaders, but we should not have got involved.

Why not? I actually think we should get involved more with the people and going against governments, clearly they were having problems over in Libya. We helped. We should help in Syria, we should of helped in Burma, we should help in Zimbabwe. We should do more then we do now, were pussyfooting around and when someone doesn't do what we like were are like an angry teacher "oh please don't do that mister nasty you'll get detention"

My big problem with the violence in this situation is not that it was around, but who instigated it.

I find the fact that the EU and NATO got involved to be rather irritating, and I said from the start that I believe the Libyan people should be allowed to get this victory on their own. It is their revolution, it is their fight. It is not right for us to drop bombs and stuff on Gaddafi and his forces, because it's not our fight, plus they need that victory for themselves. They needed to be the ones who captured or killed Gaddafi, not us. If it's true that the NATO strike contributed directly to the capture and death of Gaddafi, then I think that's really sad.

We should have supported them and their new leaders, but we should not have got involved.

The Libyan people would never have won the fight against Gaddafi and his loyalists: They didn't have the arms and they didn't have the training. They were getting their asses kicked.

Dumping a metric fuckton of weapons on the Libyan rebels, teaching them how to coordinate attacks, and bombing the shit outta the artillery pieces, tanks and other heavy ordnance that were causing them grief paved the way for them to take the country and the capital.

But here's where NATO and the US get to have their cake and eat it too: Since we never put one uniformed pair of boots on the ground, the narrative didn't become US vs Gaddafi. The Libyan rebels still did all the heavy lifting. It was, indeed, their war. For once we were relegated to merely assisting, and not simply hijacking the fight.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Well, at least it wasn't the "we supported the leader for years but now we support the revolutionaries" cognitive whiplash like Egypt.

Not quite, but we'll have to wait and see how this works out in the long term. Supporting revolutionaries in foreign countries hasn't always been in our best interests in the past, after all. Still, fingers crossed for 'em.

Just out of interest, what was Gaddafi's high score against his own people in the end? (Only up to the point that his countrymen started a civil war of course, in the interests of fairness.)

See, stuff like that means nothing to me, 'cos I had no idea who we support nor who the leader is, nor anything. Yay for being a product of '89 ;)

Originally Posted by Taidan

Not quite, but we'll have to wait and see how this works out in the long term. Supporting revolutionaries in foreign countries hasn't always been in our best interests in the past, after all. Still, fingers crossed for 'em.

Supporting dictators didn't work out well for us either. And non-intervention would collapse a lot of developing economies considering how much we're spending abroad. Damned if we don't, damned if we do, damned if we just sit there with a stupid look on our face?

At any rate, broad strokes don't work well in foreign policy.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Why not? I actually think we should get involved more with the people and going against governments, clearly they were having problems over in Libya. We helped. We should help in Syria, we should of helped in Burma, we should help in Zimbabwe. We should do more then we do now, were pussyfooting around and when someone doesn't do what we like were are like an angry teacher "oh please don't do that mister nasty you'll get detention"

Something more needs to be done in all those countries. I'm not sure bombing the shit out of stuff is the answer. But, no oil, no interest it seems.